AIBU to think if you're a net negative in tax you shouldn't be able to vote?

[SBGM247]

Trigger warning: strong political views / rant incoming. A shrinking group is expected to fund an expanding system. The system increasingly penalises work while rewarding dependency.

AIBU to think the modern state is a parasite, and that only those who are a net positive in taxes should be able to vote, rather than forcing working people to support an ever-growing dependent class?

Currently ~21% of working-age adults are economically inactive, meaning not working and not actively seeking work (according to a research brief from the House of Commons). Democracy is broken if voters can vote themselves benefits paid for by others. Representation should be weighted toward those with demonstrable responsibility and contribution.

Currently, the state is extractive and hollowing out the middle class. As anyone that has the eyes to see and ears to hear will know, dependency is rising and and demographics are changing at a rate not seen outside of wartime.

To address this simply, I think if you’re on benefits you should lose the right to vote until you’re a net positive. That would restore equilibrium.

This is essentially Chesterton’s test of a society.

"An honest man falls in love with an honest woman. He wishes, therefore, to marry her, to be the father of her children, to secure her and himself. All systems of government should be tested by whether he can do this.

If any system, feudal, servile, or barbaric, does in fact give him enough land, work, or security that he can do it, there is the essence of liberty and justice.

If any system, Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Green, Reform, or technocratic, does in fact give him wages so low and conditions so insecure that he cannot do it, there is the essence of tyranny and shame."

If the state could stop turning people into dependents that working people have to pay for, that would be great. The state is bloated, fixated on wealth redistribution rather than wealth creation, and actively working against the people it is meant to represent. It is incapable of creating the conditions for wealth, stability, and independence. This is managed decline, and we need some adults in the room who have read a book. AIBU?

So nothing outside your family? No, not enough.

Give time, care, education, support to someone you don't care about. So far, all you do is pay tax. A bit of a taker really.

Society benefits more from nurses, social workers, road sweepers, teachers, carers than it does from you, Daddy Warbucks. Get off your high horse.

As long as people are happy to suggest taking their rights away, be it voting or something else, it will get ''harped on'' about.

Under a plural vote system, you would probably qualify for at least two votes in my view. One for being over 18, and the second for your public service to looked after children. If you and your partner are married/in a recognised partnership, you'd probably qualify for a third for having some stability. So while it is quite complicated, it would actually grant you more influence over the political debate, not less.

Not as it should, no. But my not having a vote at all, which was your proposal, would give me even less, wouldn't it?

I don't think I have said anything that could be interpreted as removing rights from anyone.

You haven't that I've seen. I was responding to your comment about ''harping on'' about the rights of disabled people.

Weird post. I wasn’t harping on about the disabled. Also I don’t see what operations and surgeons has to do with the discussion, nor why the opinions of a surgeon vs the opinions of an activist paraplegic is relevant to this discussion.

It's basically the system that existed in the 1700s and 1800s. As you correctly point out the problem is that the wealthy (who are only allowed to vote) would always vote for lower taxes and only the minimum in healthcare and welfare to stop the poor from revolting. However as we saw with the French and Russian revolutions the poor make up the majority of the population so if they feel ignored or disenfranchised then they will simply start a revolution.

The problem with the current system is that it is in the interest of the majority of voters (who are not net contributors) to vote for whichever party promises ever greater Government spending (health care, benefits, education etc etc). There is a limit to how much this can be funded by "taxing the rich" so more and more is funded by Government debt. This ultimately results in fiscal collapse.

I apologise if my phrasing has offended. I did say above that our treatment of people with additional needs is central to being a decent society. I also said that a medical opinion and an activist opinion are unlikely to be similar.

I agree it seems that many posters can't tolerate a theoretical academic discussion, if it's something they disagree with- no one is really going to take your vote away.

So you've still got a situation where a manual labourer has less say on health and safety in the workplace than somebody who has never done a manual job in their life, but has accrued more 'points' in a totally unrelated sphere of reference.

A care assistant who has worked for 30 years in the industry but has no degree and is single has less understanding of the industry and legislation pertaining to it than someone married with a Business Studies degree who works as an influencer.

Hmmm. You know what you said about wanting to be operated on by a qualified surgeon? I'd rather prefer decisions made about the welfare of workers in heavy industry and regulations pertaining to the care of the elderly to be made by people actually in the industry, regardless of their marital status.

We ALL need a vote. Because we ALL have something to bring to the table. Our experience is not invalidated by a lack of the 'right' qualifications.

Decent societies do not prioritise 'aspiration' over good, honest labour. One of the biggest problems with today's society is the lack of people willing to work at grass roots level, because they've all been told there's no value in being 'blue collar'. You seek to further devalue grass roots work by restricting the number of votes available to people who are round pegs in round holes, doing the work too many people don't want to do but which is necessary for society to function.

I've been 'blue collar' all my working life. I thought it was something to be proud of. Not something that decreases my value as a member of democratic society that I have forfeited my 'right' to vote. Good job I am married, at least not having the misfortune to have married an abusive so and so makes me 'worthier'. It's a shame my years wiping the arses of people like you don't qualify.

👌👏👏👏

@ObelixtheGaul , thank you for your post. I really grasp where you are coming from and I do understand, I think.

I am not blue collared, but I don't look down on it. I regard those skills as hugely valuable. Our company sells the ability to do soft soldering and lots of other engineering stuff that not many people know how to do any more, and if anyone wants it done, we charge a premium for the know how, but the person who knows how and does the work gets paid the extra. I can't, and nor can the person who created the company that gets the work that pays the wages. But we can be all over the health and safety rules that means honest labour is safe and properly paid.

Our micro engineering business is a fleabite, but no employee has resigned in 10 years, except the one who was groomed for six years to be the big chief who lost his bottle when he understood the scale of the responsibility he was taking on. Finding the profitable work to keep paying the payroll is as much of a job as doing the work, arguably much more of it.

The work does not just wash in with the tide @Obelix!

@ObelixtheGaul

He’s not worthy of you wiping his arse. Arrogant fascist prick.

The OP just needs to go back to his DVD of Starship Troopers and realise that Verhoven's work was a critique of the views espoused in Heinlein's book, not a further glorification of fascism.

Err... not sure who is talking about what or whom here? I thought this was a conversation?

I was talking about the OP as an arrogant fascist prick. With his Alpha workers.

Whilst the drones carry the can

Does that help? I found the whole thing vile and repugnant.

The thing is, you might see it as "fun" to throw out these ridiculous, offensive ideas to see how much you can wind people up on the Internet. Your wife might find your trolling "hilarious". What you don't seem to appreciate or care about is the deep hurt that you may cause to people reading - who might not choose to post how they feel - who you are basically dismissing as having nothing to contribute to society.

That's pretty shit, and it isn't much fun.

This is giving back. Hats off to you missedtherainbow. You are a MAX contributor to society.

To address this simply, I think if you’re on benefits you should lose the right to vote until you’re a net positive. That would restore equilibrium

I was a single working (full time teacher) parent of 3, one with a disability, for many years. I claimed DLA, Child Benefit and Tax Credits. I don't have the right to vote? Jesus fucking wept.

OP probably thinks you should lose the right to fresh air if you are on benefits.

Are these people in the room with you right now?

Gosh. Big feelings. Let's sleep on it.

No.

Are you only able to imagine the potential impact of your careless words on other people if they are sat in the same room as you?

That explains a lot.